The presence of hard-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer alongside Donald Trump on the campaign trail in recent days has raised questions, including from some Republicans, about the influence the controversial former congressional candidate may have on him.
Ms Loomer is well-known for her anti-Muslim rhetoric and for spreading conspiracy theories, including that the 9/11 attacks were an “inside job” carried out by the US government.
She joined Trump at an event on Wednesday commemorating the attacks, raising eyebrows and prompting outrage in some US media outlets.
…
Now, she is known for her vocal support of Trump and for promoting a long string of conspiracy theories including claims that Kamala Harris is not black, and that the son of billionaire George Soros was sending cryptic messages calling for Trump’s assassination.
These posts led her to be banned from a number of platforms including Facebook, Instagram and even, according to her, Uber and Lyft for making offensive comments about Muslim drivers. She once described herself as a “proud Islamophobe”.
I am really good at recognizing faces but every time I see a new pic of this lady I’m, “who the fuck is this?”
But the answer seems to be, a racist asshole.
I had never heard of her until this week. To me, she looks like they took pictures of every woman Trump is known to have been attracted to in his life, made an AI mashup of all of them, and dyed her hair dark just to throw us all off.
To be fair, with all the work she’s had done she probably does look different every time you see her.
She’s only 31.
Let that sink in.
That sink won’t come in.
It’s scared of whatever she did to her face.
Her face is fascinatingly odd and . . upsetting.
BBC, don’t get played, man. That restraint you show with “self-styled” is just creaking terribly. Personally I would have gone with “considers herself” or “claims to be . . . despite [the obvious]”. Yeah yeah “objective”, look whatever you gotta tell yourself, man.
Self-styled means “that’s what she calls herself”. Otherwise they would not include the qualifier.
It’s also a “journalistically accepted” way to say “no she isn’t” while allowing that yes, she may be. My point is that they should lean harder into flat-out saying “no she isn’t”.